General Discussion

joshcryer

(62,287 posts)

12. Oh, it's you.

Reply to woo me with science (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 27, 2015, 07:59 AM

Feb 2015

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Net neutrality secrecy: No one knows what the FCC approved [View all] PoliticAverse Feb 2015 OP

Another secret newfie11 Feb 2015 #1

setec astronomy BeanMusical Feb 2015 #5

ain't that the truth... n/t ProdigalJunkMail Feb 2015 #22

Yep. BeanMusical Feb 2015 #53

So they are following the procedure. joshcryer Feb 2015 #2

"or otherwise as authorized by the Commission" which specifically allows the info to be disseminated PoliticAverse Feb 2015 #3

And if you look at the summary Pai posted, they aren't. joshcryer Feb 2015 #4

Secret laws, secret rules, secret police, secret courts. Only the People are not allowed secrets. Scuba Feb 2015 #6

This is FCC procedure. joshcryer Feb 2015 #7

FCC procedures require secrecy, apparently 'cause they don't think we can handle the truth. Scuba Feb 2015 #8

No, they simply don't want leaks before the final rule change. joshcryer Feb 2015 #9

That is obviously because if people "leaked" false rule changes and they were implemented ..." Scuba Feb 2015 #14

I don't see how your first paragraph makes sense MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #16

Title 47 §19.735-203 joshcryer Feb 2015 #20

1. Are you stating that other agencies don't release the exact wording of proposed MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #30

1. They do not. joshcryer Feb 2015 #39

1. They do MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #48

The FCC published the NPRM on Net Neutrality in May 2014. geek tragedy Feb 2015 #49

Sorta - but the new rules are said to be totally different from the old MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #56

"the new rules are said to be totally different from the old" you Better Believe It! geek tragedy Feb 2015 #57

So the NPRM included net neutrality? MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #58

No, the news media got it right. Only you managed to get it wrong. geek tragedy Feb 2015 #59

Looks like a split decision MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #67

Did you read the excerpt re: reclassification geek tragedy Feb 2015 #68

That's not part of the proposed rule MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #69

Sigh. geek tragedy Feb 2015 #70

alice in wonderland logic ND-Dem Feb 2015 #61

+10000000000 Secrecy. The MO of our new authoritarian, looting government. woo me with science Feb 2015 #10

Oh, it's you. joshcryer Feb 2015 #12

The rude ROFL smiley response and predictable attempt at personal smear woo me with science Feb 2015 #21

This is the function of administrative law. joshcryer Feb 2015 #33

Jury results oneshooter Feb 2015 #23

Thanks, believe me, I know it's coming. joshcryer Feb 2015 #27

To the Greatest Page. This is important. woo me with science Feb 2015 #11

You have no clue how administrative law works. joshcryer Feb 2015 #13

Yet it's you who argues that if we don't like the rules we can't be allowed to see, we can appeal. Scuba Feb 2015 #15

You can't see them until they're official. joshcryer Feb 2015 #17

My "outrage" isn't about the rules, it's about the secrecy. Why is our government so secretive? Scuba Feb 2015 #19

Rumors = cost. joshcryer Feb 2015 #24

There would be no rumors, no conjecture, if the rules were published. Too complicated for you? Scuba Feb 2015 #26

You should press for them to change Title 47 §19.735-203. joshcryer Feb 2015 #29

Why are you defending the secrecy? You've been posting and posting but not offered ... Scuba Feb 2015 #34

What secrecy? joshcryer Feb 2015 #36

Why does the administrative law require secrecy? What is the benefit of the secrecy? Scuba Feb 2015 #37

Covering their asses. joshcryer Feb 2015 #40

Does that mean you agree the secrecy is bad for our democracy? Scuba Feb 2015 #42

Some people will never agree that sunshine JimDandy Feb 2015 #43

Seems like the whole argument is "there's no reason for it, it's just our policy." Scuba Feb 2015 #45

How does one rationally dissent before the wording of the rules is known? Fumesucker Feb 2015 #28

What the hell are you talking about? joshcryer Feb 2015 #31

Never mind, I thought I could get a straight answer from you Fumesucker Feb 2015 #44

You WHAT? MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #71

Please provide the final wording that has been known for weeks and I guess we'll go from there. TheKentuckian Feb 2015 #52

so who's known it 'for weeks' if it's not allowed to be published? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #64

Google has seen them rtw Feb 2015 #32

No, no one has seen them, only summaries. joshcryer Feb 2015 #35

Confused rtw Feb 2015 #38

Only FCC officials* have it under Title 47 §19.735-203. joshcryer Feb 2015 #41

Spare the familiar bullying to trust and prematurely celebrate woo me with science Feb 2015 #18

Spare me the faux outrage. joshcryer Feb 2015 #25

Some people just need to whine. nt geek tragedy Feb 2015 #46

So... what's the deal here? Takket Feb 2015 #47

Why would you listen to such a ranting nutjob? nt geek tragedy Feb 2015 #50

Because he likes it. obnoxiousdrunk Feb 2015 #51

because when i came in this thread a lot of people on DU seem worried about the same stuff! Takket Feb 2015 #54

Nobody is worried about Hillary taxing America to death, last time I checked nt geek tragedy Feb 2015 #55

if it's secret, what are folks dissenting to? do they know? ND-Dem Feb 2015 #60

Yes. onenote Feb 2015 #63

30 plus years of FCC practice here -- if anyone wants to understand the process onenote Feb 2015 #62

Thank you! MannyGoldstein Feb 2015 #65

It varies onenote Feb 2015 #66

Fing awesome Man from Pickens Feb 2015 #72